Endovascular repair for acute traumatic transection of the descending thoracic aorta: experience of a single centre with a 12-years follow up

Background: Most blunt aortic injuries occur in the proximal proximal descending aorta causing acute transection of this vessel. Generally, surgical repair of the ruptured segment of aorta is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and in this view endovascular treatment seems to be a valid and safer alternative. Aim of this article is to review our experience with endovascular approach for the treatment of acute traumatic rupture of descending thoracic aorta. Methods: From April 2002 to November 2014, 11 patients (9 males and 2 females) were referred to our Department with a diagnosis of acute transection of thoracic aorta. Following preoperative Computed Tomography (CT) evaluation, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery coverage was performed. Follow-up consisted clinical and instrumental (CT, Duplex ultrasound) controls at discharge, 1, 3 and 6 months and yearly thereafter. Results: At 12-year follow up, the overall survival for the entire patients cohort was 100 %, no major or minor neurological complications and no episode of left arm claudication occurred. Cardiovascular, respiratory and bleeding complications, in the early period, was represented by minor, non fatal events. No stent graft failure, collapse, leak or distal migration were detected at CT scan during the entire follow up period. Conclusions: According to our experience, despite the small number of patient population, TEVAR procedure with with left subclavian artery coverage, performed in emergency settings, seems to provide excellent long term results. Trials registration: The protocol was registered at a public trials registry, www.clinicaltrials.gov (trial identifier NCT02376998)

New Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation After Early Postoperative Period in Patients With Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

Background: The efficacy of novel nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to prevent stroke is well assessed, but NOACs use in AF that occurs after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not endorsed. This retrospective real-world study evaluated the efficacy and safety of NOACs prescribed no earlier than 4 months after AVR as an alternative to warfarin in patients with AF. Methods: We pooled 1032 patients from the databases of 5 centers. Ischemic/embolic events and major bleeding rates were compared between 340 patients assuming NOACs and 692 prescribed warfarin. Propensity score matching was performed to avoid the bias between groups. Results: The NOACs vs warfarin embolic/ischemic rate was 13.5% (46 of 340) vs 22.7% (157 of 692), respectively, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.75; P < .001), and the incidence rate was 3.7% vs 6.9% patients/year, respectively (log-rank test P = .009). The major bleeding rate was 7.3% (25 of 340) vs 13% (90 of 692) (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007), and the incidence rate was 2% vs 4% patients/year (log-rank test P = .002.) After propensity score matching, the NOACs vs warfarin embolic/ischemic rate was 13.1% (42 of 321) vs 21.8% (70 of 321) (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9; P = .02), and the incidence rate was 4.1% vs 6.7% patients/year (log rank test P = .01). The major bleeding rate was 7.8% (25 of /321) vs 13.7% (44 of 321) (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86; P = .01), and the incidence rate was 2.4% vs 4.2% patients/year (log-rank P = .01). Conclusions: In a real-word study, NOACs use overcomes the indications provided by guidelines. This study evidenced that NOACs use in patients who developed AF after bioprosthetic AVR was more effective in prevention of thromboembolism and safe in reduction of major bleeding events compared with warfarin

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

: In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, whereas authorizing the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralized to independent 'conformity assessment' organizations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details-which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe

Nitric oxide modulation neutrophil-endotelium interaction: difference between arterial and venous bypass grafts.

I.F. 7.36